Cole v. Good Samaritan Hospital et al

Filing 6

Findings & Recommendation - This case should be dismissed with prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with a court order. Objections to the Findings and Recommendation, if any, are due by 5/19/2009. If a party files objections to the court's findings, another party may file a response to those objections within fourteen days of the filing of the objections. Signed on 5/4/09 by Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta. (peg)

IN T H E UNITED S T A T E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T F O R T H E DISTRICT O F O R E G O N

W I L M A L. C O L E , Plaintiff, v. GOOD SAMARITAN HOSPITAL ER, A P P E A L COMMITTEE, HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATOR Defendants.

CY.09-298-AC FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D An O N

A C O S T A , Magistrate Judge:

Findings a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n
O n M a r c h 1 9 , 2 0 0 9 , W i l m a L e a h C o l e ( " C o l e " ) filed a c o m p l a i n t ( t h e " C o m p l a i n t " ) a n d a n application for leave to p r o c e e d i n forma pauperis (the " A p p l i c a t i o n " ) . T h e Complaint w a s e l e v e n p a g e s i n l e n g t h , e n t i r e l y nan-ative i n f o r m a t , a n d m o s t l y i n c o h e r e n t . C o l e a p p e a r e d t o n a m e t h e

P a g e -1- F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

{SIB}

emergency room, the appeal committee, and the hospital administrator o f Good Samaritan Hospital as defendants. On March 23, 2009, the court granted the Application and dismissed the Complaint without prejudice (the "Order"). I n the Order, the court advised Cole that the Complaint failed to establish t h e e x i s t e n c e o f federal s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n . Specifically, t h e c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h a t C o l e ' s failure to identifY a cause o f action arising under federal l a w prevented it from asserting federal question jurisdiction over the Complaint and that in the absence o f allegations specifYing the citizenship o f all pmiies and the amount in controversy, the couti was unable to conclude that it had diversity jurisdiction. The cOUli then advised Cole that the Complaint also failed to state a claim upon which r e l i e f c a n be granted in that it contained no reference to the legal theories upon which she relied and failed to set forth a cogent statement o f the specific r e l i e f or remedies she sought. The· court gave Cole t h h i y days to file a n amended complaint curing each o f these deficiencies. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint o n April 2, 2009 (the "Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, Cole names the same entities as defendants but again fails to allege the residence o f each defendant. The Amended C o m p l a i n t does contain a request for $13 million i n damages for Cole and all her relatives, both living and deceased, whom she lists in detail. Cole appears to allege a criminal conspiracy t o physically harm her in which the named defendants, as well as the police, various judges, probation officers, nurses, doctor, and a dentist, participated. She specifically alleges violations o f OR. REV. STAT. 162.305 (tampering with pubic records); 162.335 ( c o m p o u n d i n g c r i m e s ) ; 1 6 1 . 4 5 0 - . 4 5 5 ( c o n s p i r a c y ) ; 133.724 ( i n t e r c e p t i o n o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n s ) ; 163.200 (criminal mistreatment in the second degree); 656.298 Gudicial review o f a workers' compensation board order); 162.325 (hindering prosecution); 30.080 (effect o f death ofwrongdoer); {SIB}

P a g e -2- F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

676.165 (complaint investigation a g a i n s t h e a l t h officials); and 166.076 (abuse o f memorial to t h e dead).

Legal Standard
Federal Civil Procedure Rule l 2 ( h ) ( 3 ) provides that " [ i ] f t h e COllli determines a t any t i m e that i t lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss t h e action." FED. R. Cry. P. 12(h)(3)

(2009); see also Cal. Diversified Promotions, Inc. v. AIusick, 505 F . 2 d 278, 2 8 0 (9th Cir. 1974)("It
h a s l o n g b e e n h e l d t h a t a j u d g e c a n d i s m i s s s u a s p o n t e for l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n " ) . F e d e r a l c o u r t s a r e cOUlis o f limited j u r i s d i c t i o n and cannot hear every dispute presented by litigants. Stock West, Inc., v. Confederated Tribes o fthe Colville Reservation, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cil'. 1989). A federal district cOUli is empowered to h e a r only those cases t h a t are w i t h i n t h e j u d i c i a l p o w e r conferred b y the U n i t e d States Constitution and those that fall within the area o fj u r i s d i c t i o n granted b y Congress.

Richardson v. United States, 943 F . 2 d 1107, 1112-13 (9th Cil'. 1991). Original j u r i s d i c t i o n m u s t b e
based either o n a claim involving the Constitution, laws, o r treaties o f t h e U n i t e d States, 28 U.S.C . .

§ 1331 (2009), o r on diversity o f citizenship, which applies to suits totaling m o r e than $75,000 in
controversy between citizens o f different states, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (2009). Federal courts are p r e s u m p t i v e l y w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r c i v i l c a s e s a n d the b u r d e n o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e c o n t r a r y r e s t s upon the p a t t y asseliingjurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. o fAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). I f the cOUli determines from the face o f the complaint t h a t i t lacks subject matter

jurisdiction, i t must dismiss the case. Augustine v. United States, 704 F . 2 d 1074, 1077 (9th Cil'. 1983 )("[T]he cOUli is u n d e r a continuing duty to dismiss a n action w h e n e v e r i t appears that the cOUli lacks jurisdiction. ").
I n cases involving a p l a i n t i f f proceeding p r o se, the court construes the pleadings liberally

P a g e -3- FINDINGS A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

{SIB}

and affords the p l a i n t i f f t h e benefits o f any doubt. Karim-Panahi v. L o s A n g e l e s Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988); see also F e r d i k v. Bonzelet, 963 F . 2 d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1 9 9 2 ) ( " [ F ] e d e r a l c o u r t s l i b e r a l l y t o c o n s t r u e t h e ' i n m i f u l p l e a d i n g s ' o f p r o se l i t i g a n t s . " ) . I n o t h e r words, courts hold p r o se pleadings to a less stringent standard than those drafted b y lawyers.
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). In addition, a p r o se litigant is entitled t o notice o f the

deficiencies in the complaint and a n oppOliunity t o amend, unless the complaint's deficiencies cannot be cured b y amendment. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d a t 623-624.
Discussion

I n the Order, the court advised Cole that she had failed to identifY a cause o f action arising under, or that contains any reference to, a federal l a w or constitutional provision. Cole does n o t remedy this in her Amended Complaint. To the contrmy, she specifically references numerous state statutes. E v e n c o n s t m i n g t h e a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t l i b e r a l l y a n d a f f o r d i n g C o l e the benefit o f any doubt, the court is convinced that Cole is unable to state a federal l a w claim based o n the facts alleged. While C o l e ' s allegations against police officers, j u d g e s and probation officers c o u l d arguably asseli a civil rights claim against these individuals, Cole has not named t h e m as defendants i n this action and Cole is unable to state a civil rights claims against the named defendant, all o f whom are private entities or individuals. Briley v. California, 564 F.2d 849, 853 (9th Cir. I 977)(To state a claim for violation o f civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, " a p l a i n t i f f must allege that ( I ) the defendant was acting under color o f state l a w at the time the acts complained o f were committed, and that (2) the defendant deprived plaintiff o f a right, privilege, or immunity secured

P a g e -4- F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

{SIB}

by the Constitution o r laws o f the United States.")' Cole has also failed t o adequately allege the elements necessary to establish diversity jurisdiction. While Cole has alleged an amount in controversy o v e r the required $75,000, she has failed t o establish that the parties are citizens o f different states. Cole indicates that she lives in Hillsboro, Oregon, but has no allegations regarding the domicile o f the named defendants. In the a b s e n c e o f a l l e g a t i o n s e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t Cole a n d t h e n a m e d d e f e n d a n t s a r e r e s i d e n t s o f d i f f e r e n t states, Cole has failed to allege grounds for diversity jurisdiction. In R e ""lexico C i t y A i r c r a s h o f
O c t o b e r 31, 1979, 708 F . 2 d 400, 404 n.4 (9th Cir. 1983)("The essential elements o f diversity

jurisdiction, including t h e diverse residence o f all parties, m u s t be affinnatively alleged i n the pleadings."). B a s e d o n the a l l e g a t i o n s o f t h e A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t , t h i s c o u r t d o e s n o t h a v e f e d e r a l s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n over C o l e ' s claims. Dismissal o f this action i s appropriate. The c o u r t also r e c o m m e n d s d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n w i t h p r e j u d i c e . C o l e ' s f a i l u r e t o a d d r e s s the d e f i c i e n c i e s s e t f o r t h in the earlier order indicates that any fllliher leave to amend w o u l d be futile. A d d i t i o n a l l y , a c o u r t m a y d i s m i s s a case w h e n a p l a i n t i f f f a i l s to c o m p l y w i t h a c o u r t order.

FED. R. Cry. P. 41 ( b ) ( 2 0 0 9 ) ; s e e also A g n e w v. Moody, 330 F.2d 868,870-71 (9th Cir. 1964). The
district court, however, m u s t weigh five factors to detennine whether to dismiss a case for failure to c o m p l y w i t h a c o u r t o r d e r , i n c l u d i n g : " ( 1 ) t h e p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s t i n e x p e d i t i o u s r e s o l u t i o n o f

'Additionally, the cOllli notes t h a t i n her Amended Complaint, Cole alleges that " a s to Good Samaratain [sic] I have a court date set for 13 April 09. Attorney L a u r a Baldwin. Pretrial 4/2/09." A search o f this cOllli's case management database reveals that Cole h a s no other active cases in this court at this time. This would m e a n t h a t the case Cole is referring to in this statement is filed i n state c o u t i . I f t h i s i s t r u e , the Y o u n g e r d o c t r i n e w o u l d a p p l y a n d r e q u i r e e i t h e r d i s m i s s a l o r a s t a y o f t h i s action in favor o f the state coUti proceeding. A m e r i s o u r c e b e r g e n Corp. v. R o d e n , 495 F.3d 1143, 1148 (9th Cir. 2007). Page -5- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
{SIB}

litigation; (2) the c o u r t ' s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk o f prejudice to the defendants; (4) the public policy favoring disposition o f cases o n their merits; and (5) the availability o f less drastic alternatives." Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260-61 (citations omitted). H e r e , C o l e ' s f a i l u r e a n d e v i d e n t l a c k o f e f f o r t to c o m p l y w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s p r i o r o r d e r i s grounds for dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41 (b). See Agnew, 330 F.2d at 870; Nevijel v. North

Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 673 (9th Cir. 1981). "[T]he p u b l i c ' s interest i n expeditious
resolution o f l i t i g a t i o n always favors dismissal." Yourish v. California Amplifier, 191 F J d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999)(internal citation omitted). This COUlt'S review o f the incoherent and rambling a l l e g a t i o n s i n b o t h t h e C o m p l a i n t a n d t h e A m e n d e d C o m p l a i n t t a k e s v a l u a b l e t i m e away f r o m o t h e r matters o n this COUlt'S docket. See Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1261. The risk o f prejudice to the n a m e d defendants resulting from a dismissal o f the Amended Complaint with prejudice is negligible, i f n o t n o n e x i s t e n t . F i n a l l y , C o l e ' s f a i l u r e to c o m p l y w i t h t h e e a r l i e r o r d e r i s e v i d e n c e t h a t l e s s d r a s t i c alternatives will prove ineffective. See Nevijel, 651 F.2d at 674 ("Though there are a wide variety o f sanctions short o f dismissal available, the district court need n o t exhaust them all before finally d i s m i s s i n g a case.").

Conclusion
This case should be dismissed with prejudice for lack o f subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to comply with a c o m t order. Scheduling Order The above Findings and Recommendation will be r e f e n e d to a United States District Judge for review. Objections, i f any, are due no later than May 19,2009. I f n o objections are filed, review o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement o n that date. I f objections are filed, any party may file a response within fourteen days after the date the Page -6- FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

{SIB}

objections are filed. R e v i e w o f the Findings and Recommendation will go under advisement w h e n the response i s due o r filed, whichever date is earlier. D A T E D this 4th day o f May, 2009.

P a g e -7- F I N D I N G S A N D R E C O M M E N D A T I O N

{SIB}